• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution is illogical and non sense

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
When the religious community argued against a flat earth, they lost.

When the religious community bucked against advances in medical science (blood transfusions, surgery, medicinal research, etc); they lost.

When the religious community argued against the heliocentric model, they lost.

In a couple hundred years, the religious community will look back on today's community railing against Evolution -- and will shake their heads in disbelief and pity.
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
When the religious community argued against a flat earth, they lost.

When the religious community bucked against advances in medical science (blood transfusions, surgery, medicinal research, etc); they lost.

When the religious community argued against the heliocentric model, they lost.

In a couple hundred years, the religious community will look back on today's community railing against Evolution -- and will shake their heads in disbelief and pity.

Doesn't really make sense, it's already been 150 + years of evolution theory, and still significant lack of acceptance in the religious community.

What is exceedingly more likely is that in the future the scientific community will acknowledge that freedom is real and relevant in the universe, and no student will believe that the majority in the scientific community ever denied this obvious fact.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
All those well known atheists associated to evolution theory deny the common concept of free will like Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Susan Blackmore, Richard Dawkins, Joshua Greene, Jonathan Cohen, Derk Pereboom, Will Provine, William S. Robinson, PZ Myers.

And ofcourse on this forum Luis Dantas, Spiny Norman, etc. etc.

Daniel Dennett:
"I Could Not Have Done Otherwise--So What?"
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/phil/teach/mmm/readings/Dennett - I could not have done otherwise--so what.pdf

Which means of course that is in fact true that evolution theory undermines all knowledge about how things are chosen, and leads to a total rejection of subjectivity.

Denying the existence of free will is just not a big deal. Why you see that as "undermining all knowledge about how things are chosen" and "rejecting subjectivity", I neither know nor can much care after so many fruitless interactions.
 
Last edited:

Kirran

Premium Member
Which can be checked with the Hardy-Weinberg equation. (And I know you know that already, just saying so people know that math can be used and applied in the theory as well.)

Yup, the Hardy-Weinberg Equation is actually a valid mathematical proof of evolution backed up by observed data :)
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
For one to claim that evolution is "illogical" makes me wonder if they actually know what either term actually means. All material objects we see appear to change over time, and genes are material objects. But then some say that somehow this change miraculously stops at "micro-evolution", and yet they cannot provide one shred of evidence to support such a bizarre claim, plus the geneticists are certainly not on their side.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Doesn't really make sense, it's already been 150 + years of evolution theory, and still significant lack of acceptance in the religious community.

What is exceedingly more likely is that in the future the scientific community will acknowledge that freedom is real and relevant in the universe, and no student will believe that the majority in the scientific community ever denied this obvious fact.
Here you go again ... making claims about others that are completely fabricated. Can you provide any evidence to back up the erroneous claim that the scientific community denies the existence of freedom? Because that is an outright lie ... or it could be that you are just mind-bogglingly ignorant.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Doesn't really make sense, it's already been 150 + years of evolution theory, and still significant lack of acceptance in the religious community.

What is exceedingly more likely is that in the future the scientific community will acknowledge that freedom is real and relevant in the universe, and no student will believe that the majority in the scientific community ever denied this obvious fact.
Also, the 150+ years point is pretty ridiculous. How long did we believe that the earth was flat? It certainly was far more than 150 or even 1,500 years.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Here you go again ... making claims about others that are completely fabricated. Can you provide any evidence to back up the erroneous claim that the scientific community denies the existence of freedom? Because that is an outright lie ... or it could be that you are just mind-bogglingly ignorant.
"Freedom," like "choosing" is another nebulous term whose meaning is known only to Mohammad. Apparently this freedom and choosing are key points in his argument, which I'm not expecting to see clarified any time soon.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The most difficult issues as a Christian I used to have with the concept of evolution were three things: 1. the origin of the first cell, because cells are complicated 2. the trustworthiness of scientists, since scientists can lie of course they can 3. Biblical issues

For #1 I found chapter 2 in The Selfish Gene was very helpful. It provided a workable way that the first cell could have developed.
For #2 the only things you can do are read some biographical information about scientists and to understand what science means.
For #3 Genesis has no title, no footnotes, no limitations. It doesn't fit into a neat category of fiction, non-fiction, story or allegory.
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
The most difficult issues as a Christian I used to have with the concept of evolution were three things: 1. the origin of the first cell, because cells are complicated 2. the trustworthiness of scientists, since scientists can lie of course they can 3. Biblical issues

For #1 I found chapter 2 in The Selfish Gene was very helpful. It provided a workable way that the first cell could have developed.
For #2 the only things you can do are read some biographical information about scientists and to understand what science means.
For #3 Genesis has no title, no footnotes, no limitations. It doesn't fit into a neat category of fiction, non-fiction, story or allegory.

Your faith is dimished by not referring directly to the decisions by which organisms come to be .

And selfish gene theory is social darwinism in the way that Dawkins talks about it, Only if you know exactly where the line is between fact and opinion could you distinguish fact from opinion in dawkins work.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
And selfish gene theory is social darwinism in the way that Dawkins talks about it, Only if you know exactly where the line is between fact and opinion could you distinguish fact from opinion in dawkins work.
I have only read the part about the development of the cell, and it was very convincing.
Your faith is dimished by not referring directly to the decisions by which organisms come to be .
That is off topic, but I appreciate your honesty. I see from your profile that you are Muslim. Perhaps you are approaching this topic from an authoritative position rather than from one based purely upon observations of nature. A Muslim submits, so it is not surprising that you submit to authority rather than appeal to nature on its own merits.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
We aren't. But saying something is "higher order" within the context of evolutionary biology doesn't mean anything.
That would depend on the definition.

How do you define "higher order"? "Heirarchy"?

There may not be a heirarchy within evolutionary biology, but there is a heirarchy of sorts among what has resulted from what is called evolution.

There are roles -and the roles of some are supported by the roles of others.
A life form might be considered to be at the "top of the food chain" while alive, but is recycled -supporting the bottom of the food cycle, if you will, when no longer alive.

All life forms are essentially food for others -live and die as individuals (which allows for adaptation over generations) -but that cycle supports something of a higher order. It supports what we call "evolution" -and what we call evolution supports the production of increasingly higher orders of life.

A heirarchy in human terms is based on authority to consciously make decisions, and the primary decision-maker -of the highest order/highest within the order -is supported by those of lower orders. However, the primary decision-maker does well to decide to consider the lower orders and support them.

That system then supports some thing of an even higher order -which is the ability to act together to accomplish great things which could not otherwise be accomplished.
Such a heirarchy is not absolutely necessary for the survival of an individual, but it is necessary for accomplishing certain things, and can make a group more fit to survive by pooling resources, acting together, etc....

A ruler is nothing without subjects, and a ruler can be of benefit to his subjects.

One cannot have an accurate view of evolutionary biology without acknowledging that it supports something of a higher order than itself.

There is a heirarchy among animals -among life forms -but it is not based on conscious decision on their part -for the most part -though it does include some conscious decisions.
Those animals which do make conscious decision are of a higher order than those which do not, but they are not fully conscious of the fact that they are making conscious decisions -and humans, who are conscious of their consciousness/aware of their awareness are of the highest order among earthy life forms.

Humans have the greatest power of decision and action -to the extent that they can make decisions which affect all other life forms. Man is capable of greater feats than other life forms, but is supported by the roles of those other life forms which accomplish things consciously or unconsciously.

An individual human can become food for the lower orders, but "man" is still of the highest order, which is supported by that cycle overall.

Man could not accomplish what man does without the support of other life forms, and the same is true for the other life forms. Lower orders of life support higher orders -regardless of the fact that it doesn't really matter after the individual dies.

The process which supports what we call evolution is cyclical, but what we call evolution has produced a heirarchy -higher orders of life based on and supported by lower orders of life.

Man now has consciousness of conscious decision, and can be of benefit to his "subjects" which support him -or neglect them -even destroying them, and in turn himself.

It can be said that man -in the absence of life forms of a higher order than man -is now the ruler of evolution.

Man is able to consider what might otherwise become of "evolution" -of all that is earthy life -and even prevent it, change it, destroy it....

Man is of a higher order because man can, for example, become aware of an extinction event before it happens and prevent it -or at least minimize adverse effects.

So -the higher order can make all species -life itself -more fit to and likely to survive.

Also consider that individual people do not necessarily need a ruler in order to "survive" -as such.
Similarly, lower orders of earthly life do not need man in order to survive -as such.

Ironically, higher orders of earthly life do need the lower orders in order to survive.

However, the higher orders can allow lower orders to survive greater things -to be less vulnerable.
 
Last edited:

Kirran

Premium Member
And selfish gene theory is social darwinism in the way that Dawkins talks about it, Only if you know exactly where the line is between fact and opinion could you distinguish fact from opinion in dawkins work.

MNS, have you ever encountered anybody who agrees with your views in this area?
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
"Freedom," like "choosing" is another nebulous term whose meaning is known only to Mohammad. Apparently this freedom and choosing are key points in his argument, which I'm not expecting to see clarified any time soon.
I agree. I think he's used it as a point of argument roughly 100 times and has yet to show any objective proof for why it is true. At this point it is straight up disrespectful.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
The most difficult issues as a Christian I used to have with the concept of evolution were three things: 1. the origin of the first cell, because cells are complicated 2. the trustworthiness of scientists, since scientists can lie of course they can 3. Biblical issues

(...)

For #2 the only things you can do are read some biographical information about scientists and to understand what science means.

There is also the practical consideration that scientists are simply not likely to cooperate to anywhere near such an extent, particularly if the goal is to perpetuate a lie. Scientists like being famous.

Then there is the matter of the practical applications. Evolution is the basis of the artificial selection techniques that have proven very useful (and lucrative) indeed. It is difficult to even conceive of the logistics for a conspiracy that would somehow present those results as true if they were false. I figure advanced aliens would have to be involved.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
There is also the practical consideration that scientists are simply not likely to cooperate to anywhere near such an extent, particularly if the goal is to perpetuate a lie. Scientists like being famous.

Then there is the matter of the practical applications. Evolution is the basis of the artificial selection techniques that have proven very useful (and lucrative) indeed. It is difficult to even conceive of the logistics for a conspiracy that would somehow present those results as true if they were false. I figure advanced aliens would have to be involved.

Maybe the US government has mind-control devices. I've heard that claimed as the method by which they faked the Moon landings.
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
Has anyone here ever been able to figure out what Mohammad Nur Syamsu has been going on about? If so, can they explain it to me?
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
The real freedom is to choose belief in the choice and there's only one correct choice; to submit. That's how I understood it. It includes objects as well as living things.
 
Top